15:0052(11)NG - NAGE Local R14-87 and Kansas Army NG, Topeka, KS -- 1984 FLRAdec NG
[ v15 p52 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
15 FLRA No. 11 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R14-87 Union and KANSAS ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, TOPEKA, KANSAS Agency Case No. O-NG-667 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE The petition for review in this case comes before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and raises an issue concerning the negotiability of the following Union proposal. /1/ Union recognizes managements (sic) position concerning compatibility. However, as the past policy, of allowing 6 months for a technician, who voluntarily changes technician positions, to become compatible, and the proposed policy, of requiring immediate compatibility when a technician changes technician positions, are both discriminatory insofar as the regulation concerning compatibility, allows technicians who hold military ranks of officers, 1 year (12 months), during which time they do not have to be compatible. Union proposes that all technicians who voluntarily change technician positions, will have 1 year (12 months), from the time of technician change, in which to become compatible. Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determination. The employees represented by the Union herein are National guard technicians who, as a condition of their civilian employment, must become and remain military members of the National Guard and must maintain the military grade specified for their technician positions. 32 U.S.C. 709(b), 709(e)(1). In this connection, a regulation promulgated by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) requires that technicians' military assignments, to the extent possible, involve the same duties as their corresponding civilian technician positions, i.e., the military and civilian assignments must be "compatible," so that technicians are performing the same work as civilians as they would undertake as military members subsequent to mobilization. The proposal herein resulted from a change in Agency policy governing the compatibility requirement. Previously, when a change in technician assignment resulted in incompatibility with the technician's military assignment, there was a six month grace period to allow reassignment to a compatible military position. The new policy requires that civilian and military assignments be compatible on the effective date of the change affecting the technician's assignment. The proposal, however, would allow a technician to remain in an incompatible military assignment for a period of up to one year after having voluntarily changed his or her civilian assignment. Thus, the disputed proposal concerns matters related to the military aspects of technician employment. In Association of Civilian Technicians, Pennsylvania State Council and the Adjutant General, Department of Military Affairs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 3 FLRA 50 (1980), the Authority noted, with regard to a portion of a Union proposal establishing procedures to be used by National Guard technicians in appealing appraisals of military performance, that the military aspect of technician employment is totally mandated by law and, therefore, is not a "condition of employment" within the meaning of section 7103(a)(14) of the Statute. Consequently, the part of the proposal concerning the military performance appraisals was held to be outside the duty to bargain. Hence, the disputed proposal herein, which addresses the timing of military assignments which must be made to maintain compatibility between military and civilian functions, likewise concerns the military aspect of technician employment and is, for the reasons set forth in Department of Military Affairs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, also outside the duty to bargain. Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Union's petition for review be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C., June 8, 1984 Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman Ronald W. Haughton, Member Henry B. Frazier III, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- /1/ The Union withdrew a second proposal in its Reply Brief to the Agency's Statement of Position. Therefore, that proposal is not considered here.